EBME Forums Forums Management Professional Issues Agenda For Change agenda for change

Yeah, You have hit the nail on the head. For this whole process to work it is vital that the same pay is applied for the same job regardelss of where you work.

As you say and as I and everyone else involved in this at this stage would agree there is currently no one national scheme of what Clinical Engineering is about or what it involves and this the problem.

I agree with every point you have made. If you look at the trusts working on this early implementation there is representation right across the board from highly specfic trust suchas my own to district generals covering everytime of equipment to be supported. The work being done in matching or evaluating posts is being sent back to centre and combined with the specfic additional support work we have undertaken to identify job content is being used to produce the natinal agreed profiles you see on the DOH website.

I will concede now that that at the moment the situation vis how R&R is to work fairly is still not clear. Yes there may be and I would hope not some kinf of post code lottery, possiblly along the line of the old London type weightings.

Where asscessment is being undertaken locally this is done strictly in line with national agreed protocols and takes the following format.
1] Local matching panels identify posts to be covered by national profiles - where there is no national profile this is covered by local evaluation (I'll explain this in a moment)
2] Matching panel is given relevent job descriptions for jobs o be matched and additional job information in the form of a questionaire which is completed by postholders
3] Matching panels co-opt relevent managers and postholder representatives to provide infromation/advice about the job
4] Matching panel determine the matching outcome - one of three possible outcomes, aprofile match, a band match or no match (for those with no match at this point it goes to local job eveluation
5] matching panel documentation is sent to core panel for consistancy check
6] post holder and line manager infromed of the decsion
7] if satff are unhappy with the result they can request a reamtch of panel - must be done within 3 months of the orginal panels decsion
8] this second panel follows the same process as thefirst and can confirm - same match, confirm match to a different profile or refer to local job evaluation as no match
9] again the post holder / manager are infromed of decsion
10] job graded into the new structure
11] Post holder has no right of review against the 2nd panel - in th event that the postholder feels process misapplied can pursue local grievence but not aganist matching or grading decsion.

As to local job eveluation the process is as follows.
1] Jobholder completes job questionaire a complex document of 38 pages covering every aspect of the job.
2] Job analysis interview - job holder interviewed by a team of 2 trained job analysts who aim to improve upon and verify the questionaire
3 Signing off the ammended job questionaire is checked by the line manager and then signed off by the job holder / line manager and the job analysts.
4] Job questionaire evaluation the completed questionaire is considered by an evaluation panel
5] data Input - validated factor analyses / evaluations input into computerised system for evaluation, scoring, weighting and job holder / manager informed of outcome.
6] If post holder is dissatisfied about the outcome of local evaluation they can request a second evaluation. But must supply details of why they disagree.
7] 2nd evaluation panel meets and reevaluates the post
8] Panel confirm their evaluation decision. The post holder has no right of appeal beyond thsi second evaluation. If the post holder feels process incorrect they may use local grievence proc. But may not pursue a grievence about the outcome of the grading decision.
9] Job graded in new structure.

These are the processes in use at early implementors - I don't know if these are the processes to be used at national role out as you see they are time consuming.

I also feel as you do that for something which is going to effect everyones primary work driver i.e. how much you get paid it is being handled very badly as a PR exercise.

I hope this information and these comments are useful.

Do we think that EBMES that actually do work, rather than ones that get Ceng and Msc every where or just follow company service engineers around doing ests will come out of this any better.
Or is it going to be a case of if youve got the bits of paper your quids in.
I for one think that its the actual long term working grade tech who should get a bite at the apple on Afc.
But then again they tend to be the ones whove applied their skills and knowledge,since leaving full time education and havent had time to go and get a load of paper.
And if these bods leave where will the eggheads be left.

Well KM, once an individual has got the minimum necessary qualifications to do the job then I guess that it shouldn't matter what you have beyond that, regards assessment for AfC, unless it's applied unfairly or unless the extra qualifications are absolutely necessary for a specific role i.e training qualification.

I think what I've been talking about is fairness - I don't think dwelling on the qualifications of Technicians is important; just something that I think may motivate Paul and a few others, perhaps, in view of the potential benefits associated with CEng that could seperate the apes from the chimps after AfC.

From my own perspective; after 16 years in this job and putting in some hard work I'm unable to progress because you have to have specialist skills or more commonly have a supervisory role - I have some skills but not those in demand, such as Anaesthetics, Renal or Mechanical Ventilation (the income/savings generators). Never been given the opportunities until recently. As for techncial or academic qualifications; they do not matter a diddly-squat when it comes down to managing people.

I thought AfC might put things to right and recognise individual's skills and experience but instead I think what I will see is individuals with lots less experience and skill take equivalent roles to mine, at higher salaries depending upon how unfair the AfC process is.

After being thrown on the scrap-heap as an MTO3 to, what I think, a dead-end job in a less that reputable private company (eine Auslandsgesellschaft deren Name mir während des momentes entgeht) I decided to get on my bike, follow the market and "trade" into a new NHS MTO3 post insisting on day-release at post-graduate level and anaesthetics training. Thinking that if I could not get the promotion then I could retrieve something out of the situation - you must take what's going in the NHS as you know KM. Not everything has turned out how I expected but that's life - a vast improvement on what I had though.

Even today, before AfC, my qualifications alone cannot get me that elusive promotion - it is low-level management qualifications and associated responsibilities that would justify this - not necessarily a technical speciality. With AfC on the horizon it looks like I'm never going to progress however much I think I know or do on the bench. This is because my employer can cap the requirements of my job within the job structure and keep me there. I think moving between jobs for a promotion may become more difficult than ever.

What would be quite upsetting to me is to find that AfC values my salary lower than an equivalent of MTO3 doing a similar job working elsewhere, in terms of pay and responsibility or reduces my prospects of promotion even further. I have no confidence in AfC at the moment.

As for following engineers around after their tests I have never seen this done at the places I've worked. The highly skilled and qualified staff I have known have mostly pulled their weight and got stuck-in, using their knowledge and expertise; I would not wish to abolish further education on a day-release basis for motivated and interested staff - it's what helps retain them.

I don't think that qualifications will be the issue with AfC - it's what your job-description says, the responsibilities you have on paper, the value that your employer places on this and how hard the employer wants to retain your services that will make the difference.

AFC GRADINGS ARE OUT.
We have just received our gradings for Agenga For Change.
Our MTO2's have been placed in the middle of pay band 3. MTO3's are at the bottom of band 4. Our chief/manager will be at the bottom of band 5.
Although this initially looks like a large reduction in salary we have been assured an RRP premium (To be announced) and have the opportunity to climb our respective pay bands using the Knowledge & Skils Framework.
Has any other Early Implementors received their gradings this morning? I'd be interested to know of any differences.
I am generally happy with the overall AFC package. The increased annual leave & Improving working lives package compensates for the salary reduction.
It is a relief to finally end the uncertainty. I'm now looking forward to toasting this at lunchtime,
Cheers.

Is this a wind up.
To say that you are happy with the overall afc package when MTO3'3 are on the bottom of band 4 just does not make sense to me.

It must be a wind up

Thanks to the Prophet (or should that be loss ) for his info.
I have a real problem accepting this concept of "we'll drastically de-value your job but pay you a RRP to sort of compensate"

Am I stupid (no replies necessary), or is a Recruitment and Retention Premia required to ensure that valuable staff don't leave because they have the ability to move somewhere were their skills are properly recognised and renumerated.

By axing a major part of your current salary and topping it up with a RRP for a few years makes the situation ok!

Are we really going to accept this? I suppose you can always use the extra days holiday for your appearances in credit default court.
After all you'll have no bl**dy money to spend anywhere else

I supsect that R&R premium is a cynical, relatively short-term solution, necessary to retain the experienced staff whilst cheaper trainees are being brought-on to reduce demand for technicians.

R&R can be witheld at the discretion of employers, so I guess when the demand drops the R&R premium will disappear.

Prophet doesnt have a name or location that can be proven.
Therefore what he / she / it says should nt be trusted, until validated from a known source.

Maybe the Prophet is not a wind up. On the Department of Health website the job evaluation for a specialist works officer puts them in band 5. The job is described as managing a direct labour force and contractors, project managing schemes & budgets etc. The guy's doing that job here must be on at least £30k. Band 5 is £17000 to £22000. For them not to take a pay cut they will need a large RRP.